Exploring pharmacological interventions in benign prostate hyperplasia: the role of cost-effectiveness analysis in daily practice and future directions.

INTRODUCTION: Benign Prostate Hyperplasia (BPH) significantly impacts men's health and quality of life, with its prevalence rising with age. This review critically examines the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for BPH to optimize patient outcomes and healthcare resource utilization. AREAS COVERED: This review explores the integration of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) into clinical practice, balancing clinical efficacy with economic efficiency in BPH management. We performed a critical literature search, including recent studies on the economic evaluation of BPH treatments, focusing on pharmacotherapies such as alpha-blockers and 5-alpha reductase inhibitors. Additionally, we discussed the concept of CEA and evaluated the role of medicinal reconciliation and the avoidance of polypharmacy in favor of optimal BPH treatment. EXPERT OPINION: Cost-effectiveness analysis is crucial for evaluating BPH treatments, with evidence suggesting a shift towards surgical interventions may offer greater long-term economic benefits. However, these models must be applied cautiously, considering clinical evidence and patient preferences to ensure equitable and patient-centric healthcare.

Medical expulsive therapy versus early endoscopic stone removal for acute renal colic: an instrumental variable analysis.

PURPOSE: The use of medical expulsive therapy to hasten stone passage potentially decreases expenditures around episodes of renal colic. However, these efficiency gains may be mitigated if patients treated with medical expulsive therapy have frequent health care encounters due to pain while waiting for the stones to pass. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using claims data (2002 to 2006) we identified adult men with acute renal colic. We compared 6-week payments as well as frequency of hospitalization and emergency department revisits associated with an initial course of medical expulsive therapy with those for early endoscopic stone removal. To account for unmeasured confounding we performed an instrumental variable analysis, exploiting variation in recommended treatments based on the day of the week that a patient's first emergency department visit occurred. RESULTS: Overall 1,835 and 4,397 men underwent medical expulsive therapy or early endoscopic stone removal, respectively. Although minimal differences existed between men with respect to the day of the week of emergency department presentation, weekend encounters were strongly associated with receiving medical expulsive therapy (p <0.001). Two-stage least squares regression revealed 6-week payments to be tenfold lower for men on medical expulsive therapy who were candidates for either treatment (p <0.001). While there was no difference in frequency of hospitalization, these men were more likely to have a repeat emergency department visit compared to those who underwent endoscopic stone removal (68.8% vs 39.6%, respectively, p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Findings on medical expulsive therapy are mixed, with lower 6-week payments but more frequent repeat emergency department visits. These data inform patients who are candidates for medical expulsive therapy or endoscopic stone removal when making decisions about their care.

Medical expulsive therapy for ureteral calculi in the real world: targeted education increases use and improves patient outcome.

PURPOSE: In controlled trials medical expulsive therapy has improved outcomes in patients with ureteral stones but its real-world use and effectiveness outside a clinical trial have not been thoroughly examined. We studied the impact of targeted education of emergency department physicians about medical expulsive therapy and analyzed its impact on patient outcomes and cost. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2006 emergency department physicians at our institution were formally educated about medical expulsive therapy. Retrospective emergency department data were collected on patients with ureteral stones from 2003 and 2005 (before educational intervention), and 2007 (after intervention). Cost and 90-day post-emergency department event data were gathered from a health maintenance organization owned and operated by our medical center. Medical expulsive therapy prescribing trends, adverse outcome (repeat emergency department visit, hospital admission or surgery) and total cost related to ureteral calculus diagnosis were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 166 health maintenance organization patients with ureteral calculi who met all study requirements 97 (58.4%) were prescribed medical expulsive therapy and 53 (31.9%) filled the medical expulsive therapy prescription, while 113 did not. Analysis revealed a 2-fold increase in medical expulsive therapy prescribing and a 4-fold increase in prescribing alpha-blockers in each time increment. Bivariate analysis showed that the frequency of adverse outcomes was lower in the medical expulsive therapy group (37.7% vs 53.1%) and medical expulsive therapy was associated with a lower mean total cost per patient ($1,805 vs $2,372). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted educational intervention can increase the use of preferred medical expulsive therapy (alpha-blockers) in the emergency department. Medical expulsive therapy decreases the incidence of adverse events by 29% and decreases the total cost associated with ureteral stones by 24%.

OTC tamsulosin for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Earlier this year, tamsulosin, an alpha blocker previously only available on prescription, became available for sale by pharmacists as a treatment for functional symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in men aged 45-75 years (Flomax Relief MR - Boehringer Ingelheim). A television advert for the over-the-counter (OTC) product claims that it is a "simple and effective" treatment that can relieve symptoms within 1 week, allowing the user to "take control of your annoying pee problems".¹ Here we review the evidence on tamsulosin and assess whether its availability as an OTC product confers worthwhile advantages.

[Economic evaluation of medical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in the specialised care setting in Spain. Application to the cost-effectiveness of two drugs frequently used in its treatment]. / Evaluación económica del tratamiento médico de la hiperplasia benigna de próstata (HBP) en España en atención especializada. Aplicación al coste- efectividad de dos fármacos habitualmente utilizados en su tratamiento.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a pharmacoeconomic study in order to know the average cost of BPH diagnosis and follow-up in Spain in the Urology Department setting from the perspective of the public health system, considering two frequently used drugs in the Spanish Healthcare environment, an alpha-blocker (tamsulosin) and the lipido-sterolic extract of Serenoa repens (Permixon). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Direct healthcare costs of BPH diagnosis and treatment were determined for each clinical stage according to the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS): mild, moderate and severe. Data on the usage and unit costs of healthcare resources were obtained from a semi-structured interview with clinical experts. The clinical efficacy of the medical treatments was obtained from the PERMAL clinical study, where therapeutic equivalence between the two studied drugs was observed. RESULTS: For patients treated in the Urology Department setting, the average annual cost of diagnostic tests and medical visits related to mild, moderate or severe BPH symptoms were, respectively, Euro 124, Euro 207, and Euro 286. The average annual cost of the drugs, including adverse effects treatment, was Euro 211 for Permixon and Euro 346 for tamsulosin. DISCUSSION: Costs of medical care of BPH increases with symptom intensity. Pharmacological treatment makes up a significant part of the disease's cost. According to the model used, treatment with Permixon is considerably more cost-effective than with tamsulosin, offering average yearly savings of Euro 135 per patient.

Medical therapy versus surgery and minimally invasive surgical therapies for lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic hyperplasia: what makes better economic sense?

From a clinical standpoint, the emergence of selective pharmacologic therapies and minimally invasive procedural treatments has changed clinical management paradigms for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Choosing from among the available treatment options can be complex for both patient and physician as factors including clinical outcomes, cost, and reimbursement are weighed and evaluated. Pharmacologic therapies produce modest improvements in objective outcomes measures and subject patients to long-term costs and risks including disease progression and the potential need for subsequent procedural treatment. Procedural interventions for obstructive BPH have changed dramatically in the past several decades as minimally invasive therapies have been developed to produce substantial improvement in outcomes measures and limit the potential morbidity associated with traditional surgical therapies. This paper reviews the current literature to provide a framework for understanding the relationship between clinical outcomes and costs with respect to commonly used medical and procedural therapies for the management of symptomatic BPH and associated lower urinary tract symptoms. The objective is to provide the clinician with an assessment of peer-reviewed evidence-based data to facilitate informed decision making on patient treatment for obstructive BPH.

Comparing Clinical and Economic Outcomes Associated with Early Initiation of Combination Therapy of an Alpha Blocker and Dutasteride or Finasteride in Men with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common disease in men that is characterized by lower urinary tract symptoms. Pharmacologic treatment with alpha blockers (ABs) and 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) is recommended to alleviate symptoms, prevent disease progression that can lead to complications, and reduce health care costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical, economic, and health care resource utilization outcomes among BPH patients treated with early continuous combination AB and 5ARI therapy (dutasteride vs. finasteride) using administrative claims data from the United States. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from 2003-2013 was conducted to compare outcomes between patients with claims for early combination therapy with dutasteride + AB and patients with claims for early finasteride + AB. The study population included males aged older than 50 years with at least 1 medical claim with a diagnosis of BPH and pharmacy dispensing for AB and 5ARI therapies. Outcomes included acute urinary retention (AUR), prostate-related surgery, clinical progression, medical and pharmacy costs, and health care resource utilization. Inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weighted Cox proportional hazards, linear, and Poisson regression models were used to assess the association between outcomes and early combination therapy as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 2,778 patients were included in the early finasteride + AB treatment cohort, and 4,125 patients were included in the early dutasteride + AB cohort. Dutasteride users were younger than finasteride users (mean age: 64.8 vs. 67.5 years, P < 0.001) and had a greater mean number of urologist visits (10.7 vs. 7.9, P < 0.001) during baseline. After adjusting for confounding using IPT weighting, no statistically significant difference was observed between dutasteride and finasteride for AUR (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.845, 95% CI = 0.660-1.070, P = 0.1643), prostate-related surgery (HR = 0.806, 95% CI = 0.568-1.171, P = 0.2525), and clinical progression (HR = 0.834, 95% CI = 0.663-1.043, P = 0.1122). While dutasteride was associated with higher pharmacy costs per month (adjusted monthly cost difference = $79, 95% CI = $45-$105), total all-cause medical costs were not significantly different between the 2 cohorts (adjusted monthly cost difference = -$44, 95% CI = -$110-$22). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and economic outcomes were similar between the early dutasteride + AB and early finasteride + AB cohorts, with no statistically significant differences detected. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by GlaxoSmithKline (HO-14-15325 and AVO110072). Bell and Swensen are employees of GlaxoSmithKline. DerSarkissian, Xiao, Duh, and Lefebvre are employed by Analysis Group, a consulting company that received research grants from GlaxoSmithKline to conduct this study. Study concept and design were contributed by Bell, Swensen, Lefebvre, and Duh. Bell and Duh acquired the data. DerSarkissian and Xiao performed the statistical analysis and interpreted the data along with Lefebvre, Duh, and Bell. DerSarkissian and Bell drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed equally to critically revising the manuscript and providing final approval of the submitted manuscript.

Erectile dysfunction in spinal cord injury: a cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is a high incidence of erectile dysfunction after spinal cord injury. This can have a profound effect on quality of life. Treatment options for erectile dysfunction include sildenafil, intracavernous injections of papaverine/alprostadil (Caverject), alprostadil/papaverine/phentolamine ("Triple Mix"), transurethral suppository (MUSE), surgically implanted prosthetic device and vacuum erection devices. However, physical impairments and accessibility may preclude patient self-utilization of non-oral treatments. METHODS: The costs and utilities of oral and non-oral erectile dysfunction treatments in a spinal cord injury population were examined in a cost-utility analysis conducted from a government payer perspective. Subjects with spinal cord injury (n=59) reported health preferences using the standard gamble technique. RESULTS: There was a higher health preference for oral therapy. The cost-effectiveness results indicated that sildenafil was the dominant economic strategy when compared with surgically implanted prosthetic devices, MUSE(R) and Caverject. The incremental cost-utility ratios comparing sildenafil with triple mix and vacuum erection devices favoured sildenafil, with ratios less than CAN$20,000 per quality adjusted life year gained. CONCLUSION: Based on this study, we conclude that sildenafil is a cost-effective treatment for erectile dysfunction in the spinal cord injury population.

[Tamsulosin in the treatment of patients with ureteroliths of the lower third of the ureter clinical and pharmacoeconomic grounds].

Alpha1-adrenoblocker tamsulosin reduces muscle spasm in the ureteric wall, decreases peristalsis below and raises pressure above the stone thus facilitating stone passage. Patients on tamsulosin had spontaneous stone passage in 73.8% cases while only 22.4% patients on routine therapy became stone free. Tamsulosin also shortens hospital stay. Use of tamsulosin 0.4 mg daily in patients with distal ureteric stones is pathogenetically validated, is highly clinically and cost effective.

The cost-effectiveness of terazosin and placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe benign prostatic hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and functional status effects of terazosin, an alpha(1)-adrenoceptor antagonist, compared with placebo in the treatment of men with moderate to severe, symptomatic, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial of 2084 patients was conducted at 15 academic regional centers and 141 community-based satellite centers. Information about the use of health care resources and non-disease-specific functional status measures was collected by a standardized telephone interview of patients at baseline and every month thereafter for 12 months. Other information, such as American Urologic Association (AUA) disease-specific functional status scores, was obtained from the patient study records. Patients had a mean age of 65.7 years (range, 46 to 94), with a clinical diagnosis of BPH. At baseline men had at least moderate BPH symptoms by AUA Symptom score (13 or more) and Bother Score (8 or more). On entry, patients at regional sites had peak urinary flow rates 15 mL/s or less and total voided urine volumes 150 mL or greater. A total of 1053 patients were randomized to terazosin and 1031 to placebo treatment. Primary outcome measures included payments for all direct medical resource consumption (inpatient care, emergency department care, outpatient care, and medications); changes in three AUA disease-specific functional status indicators, (Symptom, Bother, and Quality of Life scores), and non-disease-specific functional status measures (days of work loss, days of customary activity loss, and days of bed rest). RESULTS: Total payments for health care resource (including study drug medication), adjusted to reflect 1000 patients per treatment group, were $3,781,803 and $3,568,263 in the placebo and terazosin groups, respectively. All three AUA disease-specific functional status scores improved significantly more in the terazosin group than in the placebo group. We found no difference between terazosin and placebo in all three nonspecific functional status measures. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, terazosin therapy for moderate to severe symptomatic BPH results in approximately equivalent payments for direct medical care, better disease-specific functional status improvement, and comparable change in non-disease-specific functional status measures.

Trends in alpha-blocker treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and hypertension: dosing regimens and cost comparisons.

Dosing regimen is an important determinant of both drug cost and patient compliance. This retrospective analysis evaluated dosing regimens and drug acquisition costs for 101 patients identified from medical records in a large metropolitan hospital as having hypertension and/or benign prostatic hyperplasia and receiving alpha-blocker therapy with either doxazosin or terazosin. Although once-daily administration is generally recommended for both drugs, 25 (38%) of 66 patients receiving terazosin were treated twice daily compared with 6 (17%) of 35 patients treated twice daily with doxazosin. This difference was statistically significant. The average (mean +/- SD) daily treatment cost per patient for all individuals receiving terazosin during the period of the record review was $1.68 +/- 0.60. For patients treated with doxazosin, the average was $0.96 +/- 0.65-a highly statistically significant result. If all 66 patients receiving terazosin had been converted to doxazosin at the beginning of the study, annual savings would have been $17,345.00. These results demonstrate the importance of reviewing actual dosing regimens. The fact that doxazosin could be administered to a significantly higher percentage of patients once daily rather than twice daily substantially decreased its cost relative to terazosin. A once-daily treatment regimen may also enhance patient compliance, thereby improving the chances of therapeutic success.

Economic analysis of finasteride: a model-based approach using data from the Proscar Long-Term Efficacy and Safety Study.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the most common medical conditions in older men in the United States. BPH is often associated with a reduction in quality of life and may progress to acute urinary retention (AUR), the inability to pass any urine. Recently, a 4-year placebo-controlled clinical trial known as the Proscar Long-Term Efficacy and Safety Study (PLESS) demonstrated that finasteride use reduces the risk of developing AUR by 57% and the need for BPH-related surgery by 55%. The economic implications of these findings were investigated using a model-based decision-analytic approach to compare finasteride with both watchful waiting and alpha-blocker therapy. The modeling used the longest-term published controlled data concerning alpha-blockers, which were for the alpha-blocker terazosin. The base case considered a 64-year-old man (the mean age of a PLESS patient) with prostatic enlargement on digital rectal examination and moderate-to-severe symptoms of BPH. The model suggested savings in surgical and AUR costs with finasteride versus watchful waiting, with an estimated 25% of total finasteride costs recouped in savings on surgical events avoided in the first year. Over 2 years, the expected cost per patient starting finasteride therapy was $2304, whereas the expected cost per patient starting terazosin was $2334. Analyses also explored the variation in economic results by baseline levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), a proxy for prostate volume. For patients with PSA levels > or =1.4 ng/mL, expected 2-year costs with finasteride and terazosin were $2342 and $2479, respectively. For patients with PSA levels > or =3.3 ng/mL, expected 2-year costs with finasteride were $373 less than with terazosin ($2347 vs $2720). Results were robust over a range of model assumptions and cost estimates. The analyses illustrate that all medical interventions, including watchful waiting, have associated costs. Finasteride shows cost offsets compared with watchful waiting and cost savings compared with terazosin over 2 years. Finasteride appears to be more economical in men with higher PSA levels.

The effects of new topical treatments on management of glaucoma in Scotland: an examination of ophthalmological health care.

BACKGROUND: The management of glaucoma has been changed in the past decade by the introduction of new drugs. The impact of these changes on clinical care of patients was examined by examining operation and prescribing rates for glaucoma in four geographical areas of Scotland for the years 1994 to 1999. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of national health statistics: primary care prescribing data, hospital derived operation rates, consultant numbers, optometrist numbers, and eye test data, expressed by estimated population at risk of glaucoma. The outcome measures were prescribing volume and cost for glaucoma medications, and operation rates, corrected for population estimated to be at risk of glaucoma (PEG), for trabeculectomy, for Scotland as a whole, and for four geographical "regions" (north east, south east, central, and south west Scotland). RESULTS: Prescribed items per 1000 population estimated to have glaucoma (PEG) increased by 24.9% between 1994 and 1999. This was above the general increase in prescribing in Scotland (17.8%). This increase varied in the four health regions evaluated (14.3% to 31.9%). Prescribing of topical beta blockers increased little (6.4%), but there was a large increase in the use of new products (topical prostaglandins, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, and alpha(2) agonists), at the expense of miotics (47.7% fall), and older sympathomimetics. This change in prescribing pattern was accompanied by a 61.5% increase in cost (range 42.2% to 73.4% in the four regions). New drugs accounted for more than half of total glaucoma expenditure in 1999. Operation rates (corrected for PEG) fell by 45.9% (range 43.1 to 58.6%) between 1994 and 1999. Other indicators suggested increased activity in ophthalmic areas (for example, cataract operations, eye tests, numbers of optometrists and ophthalmic surgeons all increased). Within north east Scotland operation rates decreased and prescribing increased less than in other regions, both from lowest regional baseline in 1994. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of new drug classes has had dramatic effects on the prescribing of glaucoma treatments. There has been a decline in older treatments and an increase in new agents, which has been associated with a large reduction in operation rates for glaucoma in Scotland over 6 years. Comparison of prescribing and operation data indicates regional differences in healthcare delivery for glaucoma.

Treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. A pharmacoeconomic perspective.

Men with moderate symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are the best candidates for medical treatment, while surgery is usually indicated for patients with severe symptoms. Men with mild symptoms do not usually need treatment, but they might be re-evaluated annually if desirable. Finasteride, which produces selective hormonal deprivation, is now established as a well tolerated drug for the long term medical therapy of BPH. Recent studies suggest that finasteride is most effective in men with large prostates (> 40 ml), and the drug should probably be reserved for these patients. alpha-Blockers work in men with small or large prostates, and their rapid onset of action facilitates the identification of responders. alpha-Blockers are more effective than finasteride during the first year of treatment, but only finasteride induces regression of the prostate and offers increased efficacy over time. Even if drug therapy reduces the need for prostate surgery, the total economic cost of BPH treatment is likely to rise because of the increasing application of medical treatment. The magnitude of this increase depends largely on what percentage of the male population embark on long term therapy, at what age treatment is started, and how successful it is. At present, the answers to these questions are largely unknown. The personal economic expenses for men who begin long term medical therapy will probably be an important factor in deciding how common drug treatment for BPH will become in the future. For many men, the main benefit of drug treatment will be the relief of urinary symptoms, but whether this improvement is substantial enough to improve their overall quality of life has not yet been clearly demonstrated in controlled studies.

Terazosin. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common disorder in elderly men which carries a substantial economic burden. Urinary symptoms associated with moderate to severe disease can significantly interfere with daily activities and reduce quality of life. Obstruction of urine flow in men with BPH can result from nonmalignant enlargement of the prostate gland (static component of BPH) and from alpha 1 receptor-mediated increased smooth muscle tone of the bladder neck and prostate (dynamic component of BPH). Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is generally very effective and has traditionally been the standard treatment for men with moderate to severe BPH. However, response to therapy with TURP is not universal and the procedure is associated with a number of potential complications. Moreover, many men prefer to avoid or are not suitable candidates for this invasive procedure. Thus, there is an increasing role for less invasive treatment, including drug therapy, in men with moderate to severe BPH. Terazosin is an alpha 1 receptor antagonist which has been shown in placebo-controlled trials to significantly improve American Urology Association (AUA) symptom and quality-of-life scores and symptom problem index ('bother' score), as well as increase peak urinary flow rate, in men with BPH. In a recent large randomised US trial, treatment for 1 year with terazosin titrated to 10 mg/day improved mean AUA symptom score and peak urinary flow rate to a significantly greater extent than finasteride 5 mg/day in men with moderate to severe BPH. The most frequently reported adverse events associated with terazosin include dizziness, asthenia, postural hypotension, somnolence, headache, peripheral oedema, nasal congestion/rhinitis and syncope. Approximately 5% of men with BPH discontinue terazosin because of adverse events. Results of an economic evaluation of terazosin, in which both clinical and economic data were collected prospectively in a randomised placebo-controlled study design, showed similar total direct treatment costs per 1000 patients associated with 1 year of therapy with terazosin ($US3.57 million) and placebo ($US3.78 million) in men with moderate to severe BPH (1992 dollars). The analysis, which was conducted from the perspective of a managed care organisation in the US, demonstrated that the lower medication costs in the placebo group relative to the terazosin group were offset by increased inpatient care costs. Thus, terazosin (titrated to response up to a maximum of 10 mg/day) was significantly more effective than placebo in improving disease-specific symptoms and quality of life, but at a similar overall cost to placebo. Another economic analysis, also conducted from a third-party payer perspective in the US, modelled direct treatment costs associated with terazosin, finasteride and TURP during the first 2 years after initiating therapy in men with moderate to severe BPH. Results of the study favoured terazosin; the private insurance cost per patient undergoing primary treatment with TURP was $US6411, compared with $US2860 with finasteride (45% of the cost of TURP) and $US2422 with terazosin (38% of the cost of TURP). Medicare costs were lower for all 3 treatment groups but the relative comparisons were similar; corresponding costs per patient were $US3874, $US2161 and $US1820 (1992 dollars). A companion break-even cost analysis used a hypothetical cohort of men with BPH starting treatment at age 67 years. Private insurance costs associated with terazosin remained lower then those associated with TURP for approximately 15 years (the corresponding break-even point was 10 years for finasteride vs TRUP). Medicare costs associated with terazosin would not exceed those of TURP for approximately 7 years (5.5 years for finasteride vs TURP). In conclusion, a limited number of detailed pharmacoeconomic analysis of terazosin have been conducted to date, although it has not been compared with other a1 receptor antagonists.

Cost-effectiveness of tamsulosin, doxazosin, and terazosin in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tamsulosin, doxazosin, or terazosin as initial treatments for moderate benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) over a 3-year time horizon from a health-system-payer perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model is used to project the course of treatment at 6-month intervals over 3 years following initiation of therapy with tamsulosin, doxazosin, or terazosin. Treatment failure is defined as failure to attain and maintain a 25% improvement in the American Urological Association (AUA) symptom score from baseline. In the model, finasteride is added for patients who fail on their initial therapy and, in the event of finasteride treatment failure, patients progress to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and, if needed, a second TURP. The ranges of values for treatment failure rates and clinical event cost parameters used in the decision model are derived from the literature. Only direct medical costs related to BPH and its treatment are included. Since 2 comparators are available generically (doxazosin and terazosin) drug acquisition costs are defined by the list prices at Drugstore.com. All costs are discounted by 3% per year. Effectiveness is measured as successful medical treatment without surgery over 3 years. RESULTS: For base-case model parameters, discounted BPH-related total direct medical costs over 3 years are 4084 dollars, 4323 dollars, and 4695 dollars for generic terazosin, generic doxazosin, and tamsulosin, respectively. The model estimates a medical treatment success rate (no TURP) at 3 years of 72.3% for tamsulosin, compared with 68.2% for both terazosin and doxazosin. The incremental cost for tamsulosin versus terazosin is 610 dollars over 3 years, which yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 14,609 dollars per success. Generic doxazosin is dominated (higher cost but equal effectiveness compared with terazosin). Higher rates of twice-daily (or 2 units per day) dosing are associated with higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The decision-model results also are sensitive to the estimated costs of TURP and hypotensive adverse events. CONCLUSION: As an initial medical therapy for moderate BPH, tamsulosin is more effective than generic terazosin or doxazosin, with an incremental cost of about 203 dollars per year (or about 17 dollars per month) over 3 years.

An economic evaluation of doxazosin, finasteride and combination therapy in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE: The Proscar Long-Term Efficacy and Safety Study (PLESS) and the Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms (MTOPS) study provide new evidence regarding the benefits of finasteride in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The objective of this study was to utilize data from the PLESS and MTOPS studies to assess the cost-utility of finasteride and finasteride in combination with doxazosin, compared to doxazosin alone in men with moderate to severe BPH symptoms. METHODS: A semi-Markov decision analytic model was constructed to estimate the clinical consequences, costs and cost-utility of doxazosin, finasteride, and combination therapy. Analyses were conducted for a 15-year time frame from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC). Results are reported stratified by baseline serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level according to all baseline serum PSA levels, patients with baseline serum PSA > 1.3 ng/ml, and patients with baseline serum PSA > 3.2 ng/ml. RESULTS: Compared to doxazosin alone, combination therapy was more expensive but more effective. Cost-utility ratios ranged from 27,823 dollars/QALY for patients with PSA > 3.2 ng/ml to 34,085 dollars/QALY for all patients. Finasteride, although dominated by doxazosin, may be cost-effective compared to watchful waiting in patients who fail doxazosin and do not choose to proceed to surgery. Compared to watchful waiting, cost-utility ratios for finasteride ranged from 35016 dollars/QALY for patients with PSA > 3.2 ng/ml to 44,336 dollars/QALY for all patients. Results were robust across a wide range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy is cost-effective compared to doxazosin with cost-utility ratios under 40,000 dollars/QALY across a wide range of scenarios. The cost-effectiveness of combination therapy increases as serum PSA level increases.

Impact of clinical trial results on national trends in alpha-blocker prescribing, 1996-2002.

CONTEXT: Research on factors that influence prescribing patterns and the extent of change produced by clinical trial findings is limited. OBJECTIVE: To examine the changes in prescribing of alpha-blockers for hypertension treatment before and after the April 2000 publication of the unfavorable Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) early termination involving the study's doxazosin mesylate arm. Changes in prescribing were considered in the context of other potential concurrent influences on medication use between 1996 and 2002, including changes in alpha-blocker drug prices, generic conversion, drug promotion, and competition. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Using 2 national pharmaceutical market research reports published by IMS HEALTH, alpha-blocker prescription orders reported in the National Prescription Audit-a random computerized sample of about 20 000 of 29 000 retail, independent, and mail order pharmacies and mass merchandise and discount houses--and office-based physician alpha-blocker prescribing patterns reported in the National Disease and Therapeutic Index--a random stratified sample of about 3500 physician offices--were tracked. OUTCOME MEASURES: Trends in physician-reported use of alpha-blockers and alpha-blocker prescribing and dispensing by US pharmacies. RESULTS: There were steady increases in alpha-blocker new prescriptions, dispensed prescriptions, and physician drug use from 1996 through 1999. There was a moderate reversal in these trends following ALLHAT early termination and subsequent publications in early 2000. Between 1999 and 2002, new annual alpha-blocker prescription orders declined by 26% (from 5.15 million to 3.79 million), dispensed prescriptions by 22% (from 17.2 million to 13.4 million), and physician-reported drug use by 54% (from 2.26 million to 1.03 million). Other potential influences did not appear to have contributed significantly to this decline although cessation of alpha-blocker marketing may have hastened the decline. CONCLUSIONS: Modest yet statistically significant declines in the use of doxazosin and other alpha-blockers coincided with the early termination of the ALLHAT doxazosin arm. Although physicians responded to this new evidence, strategies to augment the impact of clinical trials on clinical practice are warranted.